been several threads recently on TVC programs, articles etc claiming some folk can "cure ME" by "retraining the brain/person" etc

now, as I've said often, I believe ME is helped by reducing stress of any form
so, coping psychology etc can help, but it damn sure cannot cure ME, since it's organic, not some weird reaction to psychology!
The organically proven effects shown in many studies, including deaths, simply do not mesh with any claims of such people

Stressors (exercise, infection, injury, dealing with people, just thinking hard) exacerbate ME and can form some nasty cycle that can spiral worsewards.

Now, in times past, and even to this day in parts of Africa, quacks and "witchdoctors" would tell folk with syphillis that their "cures" would work
Now, here's the thing, the patient would seem to get better
The reality was though, either the body defeated (or held down) the infection, or it changed into a different phase, where it attacked the brain/CNS/heart very slowly
So people thought the quacks and witchdoctor's cures were working, when in fact, it was just the natural course of the disease!
With the social stigma, cultural ignorance etc of the disease, little research/help etc was available or patient refused to find such, thus aiding and abetting the quacks and witchdoctors

With ME, most folk after a few years tend to slowly improve up to a certain point
I personally believe this is because the person learns to pace themselves and deal with more of the psychological trauma of being so disabled (and yes it is a trauma 'cause it's so damn distressing)

Thus I would suggest that many of these "talking cures" are no such thing, merely falling in line with the natural course of how most victims respond ot the disease, and perhaps helping by reducing stress.
Note that merely having someone LISTEN, and give comfort is of great benefit to most patients in any situation.

Some of these people will of course genuinely believe they are helping patients and as said, may indeed help, but not as they think they are, as their theories are simply hogwash for the most part.
if genuine, put them to the scientific test or SHUT UP.
But they better accept the responsibility of their actions if they are wrong

personally I find it a bloody obscenity that this disease has been so stygmatized, so deliberately thrown into the wastebin of medicine, that such practices are allowed to occur without challenge, or, worse, without patients having no tested and proven TREATMENTS, it's no gawd damn wonder they go try any damn tomfoolery, fraud or potential "life line" (good or bad), to rescue themselves from the pit of despair.
it has been reduced to the "witchdoctor treatment" FFS!

If this kind of crap went on about Multiple Sclerosis or other once maltreated diseases which are now proven, those involved would get in very serious trouble (and I mean that in a very broad spectrum of blame)

People have every right to believe whatever they wish, and try any treatment they wish, it is as always, their lives and minds, and "alternative" haelers and such can indeed help (some are genuine, some are frauds though but there's no easy way to tell, no tests/regulations etc).
But reducing medicine and patients ot such desperation/lack of proven treatment to such an extent there is NOTHING in conventional medicine in most countries for them, by conceit, psychobabble and worse, is gawd damn bloody monstrous!

If this kind of crap went on about Multiple Sclerosis or other once maltreated diseases which are now proven, those invovled would get in very seriosu trouble (and I mean that in a very broad spectrum of blame)

Click to expand...

I've read that CBT does help reduce fatigue people with MS and cancer persumably by helping people cope with the stress of the illness and disability as you suggest. However the CBT used is not trying to tell people they are not ill as with ME. It might even be true that CBT could help people with ME, particularly those suffering from depression as a result of their illness, but that would be in a very different form from that suggested by Wessley and others. I think it would be interesting to compare sucess rates of CBT with other illnesses. I've always been surprised that Wessley and White haven;t done this - I assume they are not flattering.

nPeople have every right to believe whatever they wish, and try any treatment they wish,

Click to expand...

Not if they are kids when Drs and Social workers try to enforce (CBT and GET) treatments or issue child protection proceedings when their CBT and GET treatements don't work. Here psyciatrits have made up a new syndrome (pervasive refuasal syndrome) where the symptoms are severe ME like symptoms that don't respond to CBT and GET.

I think that it's pretty apparent that anyone could benefit from CBT. Any healthy person who goes through normal life stresses can derive benefit with CBT (especially if offered free). Every person has stresses in their life, even if they are physically healthy. Having a person who gives you all of his/her attention for an hour and gives you practical advice, must be helpful, especially if it's free. A person with any illness has a mountain of stresses and can derive benefit from CBT. Does it make them healthy? not by a long shot. It might just alleviate the stress level a bit,
As far as GET, I think healthy people could derive a lot of benefit from it. It's a carefully designed exercise program that will put them in good shape and they will most definitely enjoy the benefits from it. They don't have to worry about PEM or PENE like we do.
I think Wessley should repeat the study with healthy people and see how much more benefits they see compared to ME patients.

What - retraining - they must be joking - though fairly nice to actually recognise things again - simple answer encephaly - in which meds apparently still do not understand.(well except SW et al who apparently know everything).

This is all some of the worst research around and just goes to show that CFS and most things in the human body are too complicated to figure out by simply observing patients receive various treatments. Especially since these researchers are starting off extremely biased. They've already made various conclusions about the illness and all they want to do is validate their own egos. That isn't science, and it's not research. I don't know what it is, maybe just masterbatory wishful thinking. You could find anything you wanted to find with this kind of research. You could prove that mating while holding your nose results in angry babies. Or that putting sprinkles on your cupcakes will make your bicepts bigger when you workout. Or that spraying your face with oil of oregano will increase your chances of getting married by the time you're 40. Or that Lupus is actually caused by brushing your teeth after eating oranges. Or before eating oranges. Or whatever....

Real science is looking for the truth wherever the truth takes you, with an open mind.

Hi SilverbladeTE, its worse than that. There are some in the medical community who seem happy with the Lightning Process prior to the science. It fits their world view. Of course, many here do that kind of thing too (experimental treatments), including me, its human nature - we know what we are looking for and this leads to bias. Usually we are careful though, and as soon as there are problems we stop. However, if a child is under an authority who says keep going, try harder, they may not know to stop, or may not be emotionally capable of stopping. This is dangerous in my view. I do not have an intrinsic bias against LP being tested on informed adults, in a well designed study. I do object to it being done on children in advance of the science that shows it is effective or safe (and I doubt it will be either).

How many specialist autopsies showing damage to spinal ganglia, brain stem and heart do we need before some in the medical community wakes up and smells what they are shovelling? In my opinion its immoral, unethical, and non-science. We have been focussing too much on "mistakes" and "ignorance'. Both of these things do occur, and are a big part of the problem, but so is arrogance, mystical thinking and unethical behaviour. Potential ethics violations are something we should be examining more closely in my view.

I agree with your vibe silver. However, the one interesting thing for me is that when I first got this illness I was able to keep my health from degrading by doing nothing but doing meditation focusing on reduced breathing rate for a full hour per day. That, combined with 11 hours of sleep a night and a diet with zero bad sugars helped a lot. I actually improved quite a bit from my baseline health.

The downside is that if I ever exercised at all I would go about 2 weeks backwards. Post exertional malaise never went away. But yeah, in some cases I think that strict no stress and relaxed less breathing can help improve health a bit.

I was so happy when I found methylation helped me a lot that I could stop doing extreme stress reduction because it was just so draining on me emotionally, I basically felt like I had no soul because I had to reduce emotions so much so my body would not feel stress.

The % of people with cfs/me that this can help is probably in the minority. And there is NO WAY that it is going to cure you. Heck, I am on a natural forum where some people think "stress reduction" is the key, and that when they get good enough to go exercise, but get significantly set back from it, they say "oh my adrenals just couldn't handle it, I have to stress reduce more". And I say, hey you are going to get some results doing meditative breathing but it can only help so much.

And yeah I do agree that programs touting it as a cure are awful people.

Before they knew why people contracted diabetes type 1 they used to often tell them to 'push through' or 'rest and pace'. Some even also suggested it was in the mind - and then they'd die.

Click to expand...

Hi ramankentesh, this is interesting. Do you have any references? Diabetes used to be grounds for putting people in asylums I think. It seems every disease that has gone from psychological to physical has followed the same course as ME, and progress has only happened once there is an accepted biomarker. In the case of both type 1 and type 2 diabetes, I don't think we really understand the cause, only some of the mechanisms and risk factors, so understanding a disease is not necessary for it to be accepted as physical. Bye, Alex

This whole talking therapy enterprise that has been facilitated by the predominance of the biopsychosocial model is an absolute farce, how many different therapies with different methods and different theories behind them do we have now? I can think of at least 5, and yet they all claim remarkable recovery rates - someone's lying here.

If these therapies were being devised by groups of experienced neurologists and psychologists backed up by extensive research using the latest techniques like brain stem EEGs and fMRI, carefully and meticulously outlining the case with mutually supportive evidence that shows the changes in thought patterns that triggers the cascade of symptoms and how the therapy reverses that change over time due to neuro-plasticity, well, then we might have something worth talking about. Until that point I have no reservations about labelling these people as conscious frauds, and the so-called ME patients who go into the media and start making unfounded claims about the efficacy of these treatments without good evidence, even if it really did help them, should be called out as idiots and their claims discredited.

Ramakentesh
I know that type 2 diasbetics often got crap especially in the early part of their illness because it can wax and wane very dramatically, so it may not show on simple sugar tests (for years doctors scoffed at my my mum for telling them this was the case with my dad, she was right, would have saved a LOT of grief if they'd listened, idiots. Low blood sugar often leads to violent outbursts)

At times my mind goes blank.
I become easily confused.
I am forgetful.
Occasionally I have difficulty with concentration.
I am an underachiever now in school or in work.

Emotional symptoms:

I lose my temper easily.
I have difficulty in controlling my emotions.
I have excessive sexual desires.
(Male I am impotent. (Female I am frigid.
I neglect cleanliness and appearance.
I have difficulty in keeping my jobs.
I am very impatient.
I cannot get along with others easily.
Certain things irritate me very much.
I am depressed, blue.
I lost my interest in my work.
I am tired of living.
I am very nervous.
My life has become aimless.
I am anxious and afraid but I do not know why.
I have a feeling of impending danger.
I feel very tense.
I have groundless fears (phobias).
I have crying spells.
I feel very restless.
I have suicidal tendencies.
I easily become violent.
I have a desire to cause damage to others.
I want revenge on society.

Bodily symptoms:

Vision:

My vision occasionally becomes blurred or double.
Sunlight hurts my eyes.
I feel dizzy or black out, especially when I stand up suddenly.
I am dizzy, stagger, or weave, especially in the morning, or before meals.
I have fainting spells.

Tiredness:

I am very exhausted, especially in the morning.
I generally feel very tired and weak.
I am very weak both in the morning and mid-afternoon.
I feel best after a good meal.
I feel very stuffy or sleepy after eating sweets and other starchy food.
I am very sleepy during daytime.
I cannot sleep well during the night.
I wake up and cannot go back to sleep.
My sleep is deep but not refreshing.
I have cold sweat during night.
I have no muscular strength upon awakening.
I need the stimulation of alcohol, coffee, cigarettes, or drugs.
I feel well after eating candy, cakes, or drinking soft drinks.

Digestion:

Alcohol sweets and coffee makes me feel very bad. I can't tolerate them.
I have constipation.
I have alternating constipation and diarrhea.
I have abdominal distress.
I suffer from motion sickness.
I lost my appetite entirely.
Occasionally I am ravenously hungry.
I am overweight.
I suffer from continuous indigestion.
I have frequent bloating.
A little alcohol makes me drunk.
I crave salt.

Pains:

I have terrible headaches.
Occasionally I feel a pain across my left shoulder in the direction of my collarbone, or in the back of my neck.
I suffer from heat exhaustion.
I have swelling in my hands and feet.

Skin:

My mouth is very dry.
I have a skin disease.
My hands and legs feel cold.
I sweat exceedingly.
My hands perspire when I am excited.
My skin is dry and scaly.
I perspire very little, except underarms, and the palms during stress.
My limbs feel numb.
I have a tingling feeling of my lips or fingers.
Sometimes I wake up in a sweat at night.

Other illnesses:

I have allergies, asthma.
My heart occasionally beats very fast.
Sometimes I tremble inside.
I catch a cold easily.
I am very susceptible to infectious diseases.

For mothers:

I have aching joints.
My muscles twitch occasionally.
Sometimes I have cramps.
I have occasional convulsions.
I was depressed after childbirth.
I had miscarriages, or premature births.

Diet:

I crave sweets and cakes, or pastry.
I do not drink much water.
I drink much coffee or tea everyday; About _____ cups.
I like Cola and other soft drinks, and drink _____ bottles daily.
I drink alcoholic beverages every day.
I generally consume ____ bottles of beer.
I generally consume ____ glasses of wine.
I generally consume ____ whiskey.
I eat very irregularly.
I generally skip breakfast.
I smoke ____ packs daily.
I am a chain-smoker.

Time of symptoms:

My symptoms are strongest in the morning before breakfast.
I feel these symptoms generally in few hours after eating.
I had the symptoms after exhausting physical exercise or work.
My symptoms followed intensive emotional upsets.

Click to expand...

Alex
*nod*
the medical profession damn well IS superstition, at least for the older ones, as many of the assholes operate on "I know how things really are, don't telll me otherwise!" and dimiss anything that they do not believe
it's rank superstition, jeesh

As I've oft argued elsewhere on the net, "science "(in a broad social sense) is todays "religion", like it or not.
the scientific method and critical analysis tends to cut down on a lot of the crap though, and more "Impractical/less profit driven" it gets, more "clean" it is.
IE, lot less corruption and fraud in particla physics, where as with medicine it's absolutely rotten with fraud and "belief driven bullshit"

Not saying "scientific method" is wrong, just that "science" is absolutely NOT the damn shining wonderful temple of light folk see it as, they put it on a pedestal and that's part of the issue. A lot of those in science know this, they treat it as what it is and just "get on with the job" but alas it does attract plenty who do treat it as a religion.
The broader social term definatley is a religion "Oh science save us from death and bodily corruption! Save us from the mysteriosu forces hat shake and ruin our world!"
On that one of my faves is way folk in Italy have built a city on a supervolcano, and expect science ot save them, OMFG, DON'T LIVE ON A VOLCANO and don't jerk off the scientists trying to help!!!!
It's totally Human and normal if silly and suicidal behaviour, not getting at the people there, as it's what people anywhere would do, alas

city of Naples, that's mount Vesuvius in background...couple of million peopel living in "ground zero" of a volcano

actually the worst threat is NOT Vesuvius, it's the titanic "super volcano" that vesuvius is just one part of, Campi Flegeri

Science is by far the best method/system we've had for learning and improving ourselves, but it's still about us "Humans".

Thus you also have the "mad aherents worse than any of the priests", ie, the "Spiked/Living Marxism" nutbags and their agenda of "Technology Uber Allez"

Ramakentesh
I know that type 2 diasbetics often got crap especially in the early part of their illness because it can wax and wane very dramatically, so it may not show on simple sugar tests (for years doctors scoffed at my my mum for telling them this was the case with my dad, she was right, would have saved a LOT of grief if they'd listened, idiots. Low blood sugar often leads to violent outbursts)

Alex
*nod*
the medical profession damn well IS superstition, at least for the older ones, as many of the assholes operate on "I know how things really are, don't telll me otherwise!" and dimiss anything that they do not believe
it's rank superstition, jeesh

As I've oft argued elsewhere on the net, "science "(in a broad social sense) is todays "religion", like it or not.
the scientific method and critical analysis tends to cut down on a lot of the crap though, and more "Impractical/less profit driven" it gets, more "clean" it is.
IE, lot less corruption and fraud in particla physics, where as with medicine it's absolutely rotten with fraud and "belief driven bullshit"

Not saying "scientific method" is wrong, just that "science" is absolutely NOT the damn shining wonderful temple of light folk see it as, they put it on a pedestal and that's part of the issue. A lot of those in science know this, they treat it as what it is and just "get on with the job" but alas it does attract plenty who do treat it as a religion.
The broader social term definatley is a religion "Oh science save us from death and bodily corruption! Save us from the mysteriosu forces hat shake and ruin our world!"
On that one of my faves is way folk in Italy have built a city on a supervolcano, and expect science ot save them, OMFG, DON'T LIVE ON A VOLCANO and don't jerk off the scientists trying to help!!!!
It's totally Human and normal if silly and suicidal behaviour, not getting at the people there, as it's what people anywhere would do, alas

Click to expand...

Yes I've heard this "science is just another religion" argument many times mainly from religious folk and I'm afraid it just doesn't cut it. I very much doubt you'll find any advocate of science that thinks the overall scientific enterprise is without fault, there is a lot of bad science and a lot of fraudulent science, but the crap that you speak of which is cut down via the scientific method and critical analysis most of the time wasn't even science in the first place. The scientific method should weed out hogwash like these talking therapies, but if they aren't subjected to the process then how can it be called science?

The reason people want to defend science so fervently is because it is under attack from all angles; from the religious, the superstitious, the "spiritual", the alternative health industry, mystics and gurus, so on and so forth; and mostly what people revere and passionately defend *is* the method or philosophy. My experience with this illness and all of the controversy and confusion surrounding it has not taught me that that science is evil because it has treated us poorly, it's taught me that the fringes of science can be distorted and if you are unlucky enough to find yourself on one of those fringes as we are, then the answer is not less science but rather much more and much better science.

I'm not sure what you mean by it's "still about us Humans", I can't see how that is even a criticism or what the alternative would be, is there anything less self-centred than the ambition to understand the reality around you?

Hi, SilverBlade,
I'm with you 100%.
Anytime a doc doesn't know what's going on with someone they assume it's a mental problem. It's disgusting.
And I, too, have become disillusioned with science. And I have a BS in Biology!
I started noticing (after working as a lab tech for a while until I became disabled) inexplicable things happening...multiple labs (R&D) would be working on the same thing and doing the same experiments, but come up with different results. I thought back to college and how during the lab classes there were times when me and my lab partner would follow the instructions for the experiment to the letter and end up not getting the expected results.
I recently found a possible explanation for this....quantum physics experiments have shown that the act of observing something changes the outcome. Which basically means telepathy, for lack of a better term, is real. So, whatever people are thinking while they do experiments, will affect the results. The same thing I'm guessing would follow for people trying out different treatments for various illnesses. If you believe it will work, it's more likely to work. And vice versa. (Spelling?)
So, science is not really science. And that Law of Attraction thing just might be real.
Yep, we're all doomed. (just kidding...sort of)

Hi Vitalic, even twenty years ago I think your description would be mostly accurate. Today however it is becoming clearer that special interest groups including corporations and governments have turned the scientific method into a rubber stamp for their agendas. Its called Zombie Science. It is essentially science driven by funding toward an agenda. The science pushing one view gets most of the funding - larger and more numerous studies. Over time they swamp independent science, and "consensus" viewpoints drift toward the money tree.

I do agree with you that we need to defend the scientific method. However, I think we are losing. These fringes of science are maybe the majority of medical science, and growing. It permiates funding bodies, corporate research and even scientific journals. The peer review process has failed for the most part in medical science.

More objective science such as physics are less prone to this, though not immune. Less objective "sciences" such as psychiatry are probably the most prone.

The media is more and more out of touch with reporting on science as well. As the complexity of science increases, the media has been declining. Investigative journalism is dying. Medical science is even being reviewed by food critics now - this saves money for the newspapers etc., but is very bad for informing the public. They rely more and more on press releases (which is often spin) and opinion pieces (which inject bias). If the public is not informed, then how can we be involved in decisions involving science? Science journalism is dying, and I have yet to see a trend against this. The scientific journals could be said to take up the slack, they are still proliferating I think, but that depends on the quality of what goes into them. When major medical journals in the UK regularly publish what I think is bad science, its time to recognize that many medical journals do not have an effective review process.

We are becoming more and more technologically literate, but less and less scientifically literate. In 1989 I commenced an IT degree and it had a lot of theory of science in it. In 2000 I started a biochemistry degree - and in three years there was NO discussion of theory of science. Its all specific theory (e.g. chemical principles) and technique. All about how and not about why. We are becoming very sophisticated technicians, and very bad scientists. If this trend continues traditional scientific methods are doomed.

There is a multi-pronged attack on the scientific method and the reasons for it. Technical competance is overtaking scientific literacy. This is in part being driven by the very agendas I talked about to start with.

So I agree we need to keep defending the scientific method. It starts with education, but it involves communication, funding, the review process and so on. The problem is that science always serves a social agenda. Its funded by social agendas. Its given approval or disapproval by social agendas (and scientific ones too, but mostly scientists read that, not politicians or the public). Ultimately the pace and direction of science is a social enterprise. That is why its so important to ensure that while society is driving the car, it is hard science that is designing the engine.

My scientific philosophy is a variant of critical rationalism and systems theory, most closely resembing pancritical rationalism. However, whereas science can be rational, it is social interests that drive it in other directions. Trying to deal with science without recognizing social issues is a problem that rational scientists have been trying to come to grips with for most of the last century. As more and more science is becoming directed by societal goals, more and more it is being driven from rational approaches toward group think in service to various agendas.

Vitalic
Alex has said it well
though I'd say, there has never been a "gold age of science" in regards to such, nor any other golden age in our history
merely, the wodners and joys of new thoughts ideas, discoveries as an ever unfolding event

"Science" is not, can NEVER be "something pure/precise and outside Humanity and it's frailities"
Humanity, well...look around. In groups, frankly we suck ass! (psychology shows why, reproducible experimental psychology at that so hey it's more trustworthy lol).

I do agree with you that we need to defend the scientific method. However, I think we are losing. These fringes of science are maybe the majority of medical science, and growing. It permiates funding bodies, corporate research and even scientific journals. The peer review process has failed for the most part in medical science.

More objective science such as physics are less prone to this, though not immune. Less objective "sciences" such as psychiatry are probably the most prone.

Click to expand...

Yep totally understand what you are saying, and the amount of corruption and bad science, withholding of data and misrepresenting of data in medical science, mainly for commercial gains or other agendas is well publicised. I just disagree with the notion that science is akin to a religion, at least in principal they are nothing alike. I also see a danger in denigrating all of medical science, especially when people completely disregard the astonishing feats that medical science has achieved when applied properly, because it paves the way for other forms of non-scientific medicine which are simply an open market for exploitation of the credulous.

HI vitalic, silverbladeTE, I am beginning to suspect we are all saying the same thing, but because we are using different frameworks to argue from its sounding like we are in opposition.

I could be misinterpreting silverbladeTE, and he can speak for himself, but my take on what he is saying is that science is starting to be treated like religion, not that it is religion. Its the attitude that is being taken, which is inherently non-scientific. This is in large part because it is starting to be driven by society: once upon a time science had considerably more authority and respect, now its losing much of that as the political elements of scientific process are gaining in importance.I regard this as regretable, though understandable from a public viewpoint.

To put it another way, people are more often treating science like a black box. Put in a request (prayer) and trust that it will deliver (the miracle). They are less and less concerned with what is inside the black box. Who cares how the miracle happens if they are so busy trying to live a modern hectic lifestyle? When I was lecturing and tutoring computer science, I saw this attitude in the would-be programmers. They wanted the solution. With a very few exceptions, they were unconcerned with how to figure out a way to solve their problems. Just give us the answer they would say. Just show us what button to push.

Now silverbladeTE was referring to doctors who don't want to know: they think they already know. This is not a failing of medical science so much as a failing of the medical profession. Doctors can become very dogmatic, and those who do not in time become dogmatic may be the exception. Adherence to dogma, old knowledge, and ignoring the new, is what is similar between medical practice and religion. In addition, the biopsychosocial proponents dismiss, ignore, or impugn contrary research even though it falsifies their approach - its heresy. I intend to argue over time that this is dogmatic verificationism, and that shares a lot with religious thinking.

Now medical science is going down some very bad paths. However, a friend of mine who thinks simlarly to me on this also has another argument that puts it in perspective. Hypothetically, you get hit by a bus and are badly injured. You get rushed to hospital for surgery. Which would you prefer: 1950 standard of medicine or 2012 standard of medicine? I cannot imagine that anyone in their right mind would prefer 1950 standard of medicine.

As for alternative medicine, I think that it both has a deserved and undeserved component to its alleged bad reputation. There is a lot of medical science that has found its origins in alternative medicine. Over time (and this could take another century or more) all the good things from alternative medicine will most likely become part of standard medicine.

One of the good things about alternative medicine is it is often more willing to embrace new technology, discoveries and understanding. This is also one of the bad things. New is not always right, not that old is always right either. One of the bad things about alternative medicine is it is comparitively unregulated, not that I am happy with the standard of regulation of medical practitioners either. The problem is that in an unregulated environment anyone can stand up and claim a cure. If its sold on anecdotal claims alone, and especially if dissent is suppressed by threats of legal action, then its potential quackery and should either be subject to a clinical trial or investigated for fraud. This is less true of some of these claims than others. Those who teach "secret" methods in expensive private courses are at the top of my suspect list. Those who sell products with over-the-top claims are another. Very sick people are desperate, we will try anything, and I find it objectionable that this goes on.

On the other hand, conventional medical practice has mostly (except for a few cutting edge ME docs in the last decade or so) failed to produce any benefit for ME patients. Whereas some of the models for ME show nutritional or neutraceutical strategies aimed at improving metabolism and oxidative stress or lowering inflammation might actually work. Most of those who embrace these approaches are in alternative medicine. Its the upside of alternative medicine as I said before.

Now when I speak of mystical thinking, I am mostly refering to one very specific branch of medicine, although I think an argument might be made that it is much more pervasive, a point I might pursue in a few months time. The branch that is most mystical, most like a religion, is the biopsychosocial approach that most of us distrust (such as your post 12). As currently practiced ts foundation is psychosomatic medicine, especially Freudian psychology, and Popper used to call this non-science. Indeed I have recently seen somewhere in an old medical article that psychosomatic medicine was called psychobabble. So when we speak of non-science and psychobabble, these are actually terms used in scientific literature that go back decades. We are not the first to be offended or abused by this branch of medicine. We are not the first to regard it as unscientific. We are not the first to regard it in the same category as alchemy or witch-doctoring. In most of a century of research they are still failing to establish a sound evidentiary basis to the discipline. This alone could be one reason why they are so determined to hold onto diseases like CFS, ME, fibro, IBS, GWS and MCS.

yeah, the "scientific method" is absolutely valid, and many people in the field stick to what science "is"
but, there are many people who "get into science" and use/abuse/regard it it for wrong reasons/wrong way.

Very important to read up and understand the history of science, it is absolutley not some "perfect journey of truth", but it is the most important tool for improvement and understanding we have ever created.
There have been duels, murders,frauds etc all the way back, because as said in the end, it's about people...in all their lumpen glory.
Science does not happen miraculously, it's carried out by people.

Some people, like it or not, do treat it like a religion, it's plain fact many refuse to see, most obviously those "Spiked/Living Marxist" types, that's zealotry, not logic.
And many people want a "religion" a prop, a safety blanket, a secure constant in their lives, quite natural in this damn chaotic scary life we have, but when folk apply that to science and get more and more conservative (as in narrowing on limits etc as age often brings to ALL of us) and unfliching certainty....meh

Science is about probability, not certainty, it's about facts, not guaranteed 100% truths, it's about giving us information to use as we see fit it cannot "make life better" unless we chose to do so.
That's one HUGE oversight many folk wrongly make, science cannot make life "better", it's entirely up to us to use the tools it gives wisely.
It's up to society to direct itself ot the making of penicillin...or abusing penicillin to hell and making resistant bacteria...or flying bombs...or ignoring facts because they are "inconvenient".
Science is also vastly entertaining and often enlightening but those are perosnal things, not really directly practical.

Please note, science has been one of my passions from a young age
I DO alas understand all to well the "assaults" up on it, but..."science" or rather the bullcrap associated with it/bad/wicked ways it has been used, make science its own worst enemy (often merely for nto standing up en masse and protesting on such abuses).

And as said, it's important ot understand there has never been a "perfect golden age", it's merely a question of the bullcrap of that age (see for example, the idiot Anglo-French rivalries in science 1700 to 1800s which were sometiems good for spurring innovation and even cooperation, but sometimes not),
but yes, recently the corporates have becoem a terrible menace because they realize they value of science, and thus demand to dominate and use it entirely for their own selfish ends.

I'm not against GM crops because I'm an idiot Luddite/religious zealot or whatever, I'm against sons of bitches like Monsanto, who've been cuaght out time and again doing "dirty deeds done dirt cheap" (see Agent Orange), threatening our damn major food crops if they screw up:
I wouldn't trust those bozos to wash laundry, never mind screw up and cross pollinate say, potatoes into toxicity!

Their goal is profit, not science, and I perosnally would never allow such experiments anyway, for a very simple set of reasons:

we live on ONE planet, so any screw up with a biological agent can have catastrophic effect. hey we're retarded enough as a species to detonate a thousand atomic weapons in the atmosphere after all...but biologicals are waaaaay worse in reality. Simple example is to see how "invasive, non native species" can bugger things up

We simply do not know jack squat, if we really KNEW everything to such confidence we wouldn't need science! Thus confidence in safety of GM crops is bloody ludicrous. I can point out the huge numbers of serious consequenes of such arrrogance from history, start with Africanized honey bees.

Cross pollination has been occuring, proving they were full of it, as usual.

See history of potato blights and other crop diseases to grasp the consequences of a screw up

yes, I know the world deperately needs food, but like with vaccines, THE ENDS DO NOT DAMN WELL JUSTIFY THE MEANS OR BLOODY ARROGANT CERTAINTY! jeesh.

that's one area where caution and responsibility must out weigh any fervour for advancement (note I say "fervour" quite specifically, leitimate area for research and knowledge, but responsibility cannot be thrown to the wayside, and corporates don't give a rat's ass, sigh).

Also, see corporate antiwhistleblower strategy/contracts etc form 1980 onwards.
End of the day though, it's up to the world of Science to either stand up and demand/work on a framework/laws of ethical behaviour (ie a Hippocratic Oath for Science), or it iwll go down in history as a monster/part of the monster for not opposing those who are using science as a baseball bat to bludgeon themselves to the top of the pile, but in doing so, will destroy us all sooner or later.